Or anything about Britain's cultural heritage -- which will help ensure that that cultural heritage will soon disappear under the black flag of Islam. From the TimesOnline, with thanks to Teri:
SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.
The draft also purges references to promoting leadership skills and deletes the requirement to teach children about Britain’s cultural heritage....
The requirement to teach Britain’s “cultural heritage” will also be removed. The present version states: “The school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils’ sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society.”
Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung.
What could this possibly accomplish. Now British people will have to accept arranged marriages, forced genital mutilation, honor killings and stonings as "lifestyle choices"?
Who the hell is patting themselves on the back over this thinking they've done the country a favor?
WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING????
freewoman
they simply can't tell right from wrong, that's all.
I am actually impressed that up until this point they did teach there is a difference between right and wrong. Moral relativism has been dominant here for quite some time.
This is a joke, right? This reads like a parody written by The Onion.
While some moral values and dilemmas are subjective and murky, moral relativism is dangerous, as is cultural relativism. Abandoning the cultural heritage of a country like Britain in favor of Islamic non-culture and terror is just downright surreal.
The proposed changes remove references to “the common good”. Teachers should simply ensure that pupils have secure values and beliefs and a strong sense of their place in the world. Rather than develop leadership skills, the pupils should be enterprising
Muslims won't have a problem with that. They are very secure in their beliefs, and have an unusually strong sense of their place in the world. Or rather, they have a sense of what their place in the world should be.
Oh wonderful! It's bad enough that our society is going to hell in a handbasket, but now we're going to teach our kids that they no longer bear the expectation of moral accountability based on values that have evolved out of our cultural heritage?.
Grrrr!
What do they mean, "Relative, rather than absolute values"?. Bloody idiots!. Relative to which perspective, one may ask?.
The "spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society", perhaps?. For crying out loud!. Diversity?, no problem...We're all different. But the people that have come to Britain over the centuries are meant to have come because they wanted to be British and to enjoy all the freedoms and priveledges that being so brings to them. Removing "The requirement to teach Britain’s “cultural heritage”, is as good as saying "They don't want to be British"; they just want to remake Britain in the image of the morally, socially and culturally retarded swamps they came from.
Is our government doing anything about this?. Oh, you bet they are!; They're the ones facilitating it!.
I do admit that when I first started reading articles at this site, I was ignorant to the concepts of "Dhimmitude" and all it entailed. I have never taken the postings of messrs Spencer, Fitzgerald et al at face value however; Rather, I have found them to be an encouragement, a prime mover in my search for the realities of the situations that their articles represent. For this, Gentlemen, my most humble thanks for the time you have spent in order to present these articles and your thoughts to us.
I have always been a most fervent patriot of my country. Yet lately I am becoming more and more cognisant of the insidious attack that my nation is suffering. If I were angry before, then the more facts I find presented before me are driving me to cold fury at the thought that my nation, my Britain, is being slowly eroded, no less by those that would proclaim themselves as "British".
Rest assured, I will never now rest in my quest to educate those ignorant of the dangers facing our country, neither will I stay silent in the face of those who would be proponent to the sociopolitical forces arrayed against we of like mind, proud of our nations, proud of our heritage.
For my nation, what better words of inspiration could I embrace than those of the great Sir Winston Churchill:
"We shall defend our island, Whatever the cost may be"
The simple concept of Moral or Cultural relativism just drives me to distraction. It has taken on the meaning that all cultures have equal weight and value. This means that you cannot criticize anybody or anything any more. Common sense dictates that a set of Dancers hopping and puffing in a clearing in New Guinea in clay masks and a penis gourds cannot be the cultural equal to the Royal Ballet. Why cannot they see that all cultures are of equal validity but they don't have equal value. Like Wishbone I am a Brit and proud of it, but at times like this I cringe, and he is so right there is a cold fury building up. That sense of helplessness and anger at the Government in not defending our way of life and handing over control more and more to Brussels it is going to cause such an explosion in the not too distant future.
Thanks, Treehugger. How apt, how sad.
All "cultures" are equal. Everyone is equal to everyone else. Nothing is better than anything else. Shakespeare or Hip-Hop, please don't make those awful distinctions. Truth is a social construct. Historians simply choose that truth they wish to construct. Everything is a social construct. Everything is exactly equal to everything else. Words such as "good" and "evil" are too -- judgmental. Words such as "better" and "worse," or "excellent" or "wretched" are very bad words indeed, because they are "judgmental." Being "judgmental" is a bad thing. Being the patriotic member of a nation-state, when the only Good Things must transcend, must be openly hostile to, the idea of the nation-state (what could that Most Outstanding Example of Such a Good Thing be?), which is outmoded and parochical and dangerous to the new world we all wish to create, the one that is dimly glimpsed in the workings of that samaritan organization, the European Community, or that even more wonderfully samaritan organziation, the United Nations.
This view of things, this ideology, is called Ekwilism. Everything is, or must be made, equal to everything else. You can find more about the doctrine of Ekwilism by reading "Bend Sinister."
No, Hugh, please don't mischaracterize them. They do believe in good and evil, in right and wrong. Western culture is evil, Judaism and Christianity are evil, Israel is evil, allying oneself to the Muslims to defeat the aforementioned is right, publishing classified information in the guise of "speaking truth to power" is right.
Or, as the slogan goes: nondualism is good, dualism is evil!
"SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum."
This will equip them for work in the main stream media, or a job in the French government.
Read all the story, both pages, at Times on line.
A spokeswoman for the National Union of Teachers said: “Teachers always resented being told that one of the aims of the school was to teach the difference between right and wrong. That is inherent in the way teachers operate"
Then click on debate and see the consensus of opinion that teaching right from wrong is right.
The teaching profession will always teach children about which behaviours constitute right or wrong, no matter how the Government changes the words to make this basic concept politically correct.
Some years ago, there was an Anglican priest who preached that the Ten Commandments said 'Thou shalt not steal', not that 'Thou shalt not steal from Marks & Spencer'. Anybody know if that started a trend? The lack of moral certitude from the Church of England is very disturbing, and further weakens any attempts at fighting creeping Islamization.
Although not a Christian, I do hope that the Anglican church purges itself of all the moral relativist elements. Other than that, only a King Henry II can save it, but I don't see that in Prince Charles.
Test
define: psychopath
an individual with no superego or conscience; because of this deficit, the person often engages in extensive antisocial behavior.
nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/usermanuals/sexabuse/sexabuseh.cfm
Psychopaths are manipulative, charming, glib, deceptive, parasitic, irresponsible, selfish, callous, promiscuous, impulsive, antisocial, and aggressive individuals who have no concern for the welfare of others, experience little remorse or guilt as a result of their injurious and antisocial behavior, do not tolerate delay of gratification, and persevere despite punishment; psychopaths are mostly male and are less than 1% in the general population; approximately 11% of the forensic ...
www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/psych_glossary.htm
sociopath: someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder (`psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by `sociopath')
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a personality disorder which is often characterised by antisocial and impulsive behaviour. APD is generally (if controversially) considered to be the same as, or similar to, the disorder that was previously known as psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorder. Approximately 3% of men and 1% of women have some form of antisocial personality disorder (source: DSM-IV).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath
So what does this mean? Must the teacher stay silent or offer congratulations (with all due cultural sensitivity) when a 10 year old female student announces that she will be traveling to Pakistan during Christmas (Winter) break to marry her 22 year old cousin?
define: demoralize
corrupt: corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; "debauch the young people with wine and women"; "Socrates was accused of corrupting young men"; "Do school counselors subvert young children?"; "corrupt the morals"
depress: lower someone's spirits; make downhearted; "These news depressed her"; "The bad state of her child's health demoralizes her"
confuse or put into disorder; "the boss's behavior demoralized everyone in the office"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
==================================================
Creating better slaves by removing thier moral centers: blank slates for sharia to be written. The vipers responsible need to be exposed and removed!
Some while back i posted a brief note about my childrens inforced islamic education,i am not a well educated person but i can see the dangers posed by the UK Government with regaurd to this type of teaching,this is not new news the people incharge of all levels of education are being guided by islamic overseers,i have been shocked by the amount of childrens school books which hold referance to islam.I have complained to teachers and headmasters only to be given some very smart*** comments in reply,i am going to post a letter i recived "as written to me" by a headteacher all comments are welcome on this letter .thanks.
I write to acknowledge that we have recived your request to withdraw your children from those elements of the religious education curriculm which focus on islam.At these times,your child will be expected to go to another classroom to work,where they will be supervised by the class teacher in that room.They will join with the activities taking place in that room.The school cannot provide alternative work for your child.You should note that we cannot ensure your child will never hear referance to islam in other lessons.
The school recognises that parents do not allways have the time or opportunity to gain familiarity with what is taught in diffrent subjects .We would therefore like to remind you that our RE curriculum follows the local agreed syllabus for religious education as we are required to do so by law.This agreed syllabus has been drawn up,and agreed,by representives of the religious groups in our area,including the Church of England,other christian denominations and other faiths.Whailst greatest attention is given to Christianity ,islam is included in the agreed syllabus because it is one of the major world faiths.The agreed syllabus requires that pupils should have the opportunity to gain understanding of muslim beliefs and practices,and how these inpinge of the lives of people in this country and throught the world.
Religious education is an important part of the school curriculm.At our school we belive it has a crucial part to play in the education of all pupils,irrespective of beliefs they,and there parents hold.For example,religious education deals with the the religious and moral beliefs and values which underpin personal choices and behaviour,and social polices and practices.In a world increasingly torn by conflict we feel the need to understand the beliefs and values of others remains paramount.
If you wish to discuss this matter with me further please telephone the school.
"In a world increasingly torn by conflict we feel the need to understand the beliefs and values of others remains paramount."
I agree. So all teachers be sure to inform your students that it is a core Islamic belief that all other beliefs and values must be destroyed, and that any obstinate holders of those "other" beliefs and values--those sub-human infidels--must either be humiliated and subjugated under Islamic rule, or else exterminated. Be sure to explain why that mandatory attitude for Islam's adherents might cause conflict in the world.
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Infidel Pride, the Anglican Church is probably past saving, except perhaps in Africa between the Sahara and the Limpopo, Malaysia, South Asia, and the land of Oz. Also, it was Henry VIII, not Henry II, who made the break with Rome.
Kepha
I was referring to Henry II's clarion call to get rid of an extremely meddlesome Thomas Beckett, which 4 of his knights went ahead and did, right within Canterbury Cathedral itself. It was more an allusion on how the British Royalty - the official heads of the Church of England - should deal with errant Archbishops who lead their flock into the loving arms of Islam. Of course, if those heads of Church are themselves extremely dhimmified, it's a chicken & egg question.
I usually hesitate before writing off a country; I'm even more reluctant to write off a religion. However, I do wonder how the Anglican Church can free itself of both Prince Charles (granted, he's not yet the head) and William Rowan. That looks like it would require divine intervention.
We are throwing away the greatest society ever for barbarians in our midst.
Will the law of the jungle be the creed?
Who will rid us of these troublesome priests* indeed?.
(* or politicians; insert own preference here)
The world's 3 billion muslims would agree with you all.. moral relativism sucks, that is why they have Shari'a.. There is no moral relativism in Islam, in fact Islam has the worlds strictest set of morals, pretty much Old Testament Talmudic as I recall, but untouched by (gasp) the humanizing touch of modernity.
Nariz
Where did you get the 3 billion figure? Even Mohammedans don't make that claim - they top off at 1.5b - itself grossly exaggerated.
.. There is no moral relativism in Islam, in fact Islam has the worlds strictest set of morals, pretty much Old Testament Talmudic as I recall, but untouched by (gasp) the humanizing touch of modernity.
Posted by: Nariz at July 31, 2006 10:47 PM
You recall wrong; Islamic "morals" do not in any way resemble Biblical teachings or the Ten Commandments. Muslims do not recognize the Ten Commandments and in fact, the only "sin" egregious enough to send a muslim to Hell is polytheism. All others are forgiveable and can be countermanded by "good works." Adultery is probably the most heinous sin in Islam after polytheism, but not for the same reason Christians and Jews believe it is wrong. In Islam, women are chattel and and brood mares for their tribes. Many tribal wars have been fought over the theft of livestock.
To say that Islam has the strictest set of morals is absolutely ludicrous. Islam has no morals; it sanctions murder; rape; pillage; plunder; terrorism; torture; slavery. The Bible was plagarized and contorted by the twisted minds that devised the evil religion of Islam, and the end result does not resemble a religion at all, certainly not Christianity or Judaism.
Your endless innuendoes that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are equally inimical are tiresome and quite wrong.
The West is done, if this what things have come to. (This is so heart breaking).If so lets just burn the whole garbage heap to the ground. The idiots behind this are simply pre-emptively making excuses and justifications for future Muslim atrocities.Damn leftist elites and thier Gramican nihilism and moral relativism. Islam may have lots of shortcomings, but in this war it is the superior ideology and will run the West down.Islam isn't self-hating and Islamist know why and for what purpose they rise from bed each morning. The same can't be said for this heap of human wreckage. The West is a rotted,broken down house, that has been eaten away by all the degenerate,marxist,socialist leftist termite filth.I was once upon a time sympathetic to the left, but now I simply want a series brutal civil wars to uproot the vermin in as many Western countries as possible.The people responsible for the destruction of England and other Western countries and the broader Western cultural inheritance are criminals and traitors and should be treated accordingly time. Time for war,time to rise up.Our lives depend on it.
Laststand, in the following paragraph from your children's school is it supposed to be "impinge on" not "inpinge of"?
"The agreed syllabus requires that pupils should have the opportunity to gain understanding of muslim beliefs and practices,and how these inpinge of the lives of people in this country and throughout the world."
If it is supposed to read "impinge on" then actually your school is doing a service to the community since they are ackowledging that muslim beliefs are encroaching or infringing on the lives of people throughout the world.
Learning that muslim beliefs impinge on others' lives can only be a good thing (rather than the stupid parroting that Islam is a religion of peace when nowhere in the world does that hold true) and as many JW readers can attest, we have had our eyes opened to what Islam is really about, generally with no real help from the public education groups. I for one would be thrilled to have real scrutiny of the religion taught in all schools.
If it's of any importance,this change (or fatwa) only applies to England,not to Scotland,Wales or Northern Ireland.
Mercifully for Scotland and Wales the mohammedans are a tiny minority,and Northern Ireland has its own problems without worrying about the cannibal animals from Mecca.
As usual,the Times thinks "England" is the United Kingdom,it's just the biggest part of it.
....job in the French Governmant....bwahahahahah!
Thanks for pointing out the word play eve the letter i posted is as sent to me.(Inpinge of)had been stated in the letter i recived.
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
“secure values and beliefs”
What the hell does this mean?
When I was 15, I had a friend who started a "progressive" public school program called the "Urban Pioneers". One thing they did was encourage students to bring in friends to check out the program. My friend invited me one day.
We were separated into groups. We had an exercise to determine our "values". In this scenario, there were several people who were the last survivors of some sort of disaster. I don't remember the exact number at this point, but there was only room in the shelter for a certain number of people, and the surviving group was too large.
The people were all stereotypes. Of the ones I remember, there was a young pregnant woman, an elderly priest, a policeman with a gun, etc, etc.
The group's task was to use their sense of "values" to decide who would have a spot in the shelter and who would not. Those left outside would presumably die.
I was appalled by this exercise.
I told the instructor that I felt it was wrong. For one thing, I knew that people often enhanced their ability to survive if they banded together, rather than casting each other out of the shelter. When that argument got nowhere, I asked if we could take on personas. I intended to sacrifice my own persona (I realize this impulse to self-sacrifice is not all that healthy, either, but I felt ift preferable to casting others out). I tried to modify the test, by asking if the policeman could throw away his gun (yes, this is knee-jerk liberalism--perhaps there would be a need for law and order. Still, I realized that to treat his having a gun as intrinsic was dishonest). I suggested that perhaps the priest, being spiritual (and aged) might decide to step out on his own, etc, etc.
I got nowhere. The rest of the group decided, often laughingly, who would live and who would die. I don't think anyone else had any qualms--if they did, they kept it to themselves.
Even at 15 I could see that this exercise, in addition to being immoral, was also extremely manipulative. If you kicked the priest out, you were anti-religion. The pregnant woman--anti-family, the policeman--anti-authority, etc. Sure enough, this is how the results were interpreted by the teacher in the following discussion.
I had thought, at the time that this was a sadistic exercise dreamed up by this teacher. I later learned that this is a quite common psychological test.
This was not recent--this took place *30 years ago* in an American school. I am afraid that teaching right from wrong has not been part of the curriculum here for a long time.